I still find it funny that in most Legends the Critical Macguffin was usually a Missable Artifact.
All artifacts are missable if there's no caster in the party.
Or, you know, the GM could treat artifacts as important in the setting and story. If they are introduced even to an imperceptive or caster-less party, they may be /looking/ for it.
|
I still find it funny that in most Legends the Critical Macguffin was usually a Missable Artifact.All artifacts are missable if there's no caster in the party.
Or, you know, the GM could treat artifacts as important in the setting and story. If they are introduced even to an imperceptive or caster-less party, they may be /looking/ for it.
LOL, that would be great- just imagine the party walking by, one clumsy clown accidentally kicks it as they walk by, and then the poor item gets crushed under foot "CRRACK!!!"
"I do not, for one, think that the problem was that the party was down. I think that the problem *may* have been, that there was a
Legends the Critical Macguffin in the dungeon that was in danger of being crushed by a dwarf."
The Spear of Zeus that was found and wielded by a Greek Hero, can't remember the name, was found by accident. He thought it was a basic Spear and went to use it for a Hunt. He threw it and it transformed into a Lightning Bolt that struck his target then flew back to his cohorts hand.
NOTE: The Spear was linked to a Bracelet/Bracer that was being worn by said Cohort.
Why would the critical macguffin be hidden without additional clues or backup ways to find it, rendering the campaign vulnerable to the players missing it?!?So then let me ask you this, - if the players then walk by the critical hidden macguffin, do you just declare the campaign over?
So, if they will always find it, why hide it at all?
I got rid of spammable spell entirely, just too moronic IMO.
So 0 level spells are 3/day + casting stat modifier in uses - you get to cast anything you want from your orison or cantrip list without prep long as you do not go over the limit. makes them utility spells and you get to see more of them put into play.
Also removed mending (and a few others) from the 0 list. Works good so far.
I am going to channel Roberta Yang for a minute here:
Sure. Because even tho the Devs have a hundred years of game developing experience and the game was extensively playtested, they are all likely "moronic".
I still find it funny that in most Legends the Critical Macguffin was usually a Missable Artifact.All artifacts are missable if there's no caster in the party.
If you have a party without *any* sort of caster, you have bigger problems than missing the macguffin.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got rid of spammable spell entirely, just too moronic IMO.
So 0 level spells are 3/day + casting stat modifier in uses - you get to cast anything you want from your orison or cantrip list without prep long as you do not go over the limit. makes them utility spells and you get to see more of them put into play.
Also removed mending (and a few others) from the 0 list. Works good so far.
I am going to channel Roberta Yang for a minute here:
Sure. Because even tho the Devs have a hundred years of game developing experience and the game was extensively playtested, they are all likely "moronic".
Lol, spare me the Roberta Yang nonsense.
Try to defend your argument and position with your own reason, not by channeling the bilge or thought process of some forum poster I don't care about.
And if you don't like it, you need to do a little better than the "devs have a hundred years gaming experience" to use as your answer as why its good, balanced, or even makes sense.
The spammable 0-level spells are moronic - your appeal to authority by citing the devs of a game that I am not a particular fan of is a fail and a wholly unconvincing argument to put them back in my game, especially in a "Dysfunctional or Silly rules" thread.
I go by what works for me and my group, not what someone else tells me is right. Especially if that someone has a play style, design consideration and objectives that are wildly different than my own.
The spammable 0-level spells are moronic - your appeal to authority by citing the devs of a game that I am not a particular fan of is a fail ..
In case you didn't notice this is the Paizo message board about their games, why are you here then?
|
|
In case you didn't notice this is the Paizo message board about their games, why are you here then?
The spammable 0-level spells are moronic - your appeal to authority by citing the devs of a game that I am not a particular fan of is a fail ..
Because I bought the game and several hundreds of dollars worth of products. Not all their stuff is garbage (on the creative side), but for the most part their rules are. Not wholly their fault, since they inherited it from 3.5, but some of the changes they made were beyond crappy.
Also, in case you haven't noticed - this thread is called "Dysfunctional and Silly rules" in the Homebrew section, wth are you doing here defending the game vs. posters who are posting perceived problems in a suggestion thread? eBoarding?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if they will always find it, why hide it at all?Why would the critical macguffin be hidden without additional clues or backup ways to find it, rendering the campaign vulnerable to the players missing it?!?So then let me ask you this, - if the players then walk by the critical hidden macguffin, do you just declare the campaign over?
A good question. Why would you hide something that they need or it's campaign over?
To feint in melee uses the bluff skill and is thus charisma based, not dexterity based.
I always hated that...and have always house-ruled it.
In case you didn't notice this is the Paizo message board about their games, why are you here then?
The spammable 0-level spells are moronic - your appeal to authority by citing the devs of a game that I am not a particular fan of is a fail ..
Because I bought the game and several hundreds of dollars worth of products. Not all their stuff is garbage (on the creative side), but for the most part their rules are. Not wholly their fault, since they inherited it from 3.5, but some of the changes they made were beyond crappy.
Also, in case you haven't noticed - this thread is called "Dysfunctional and Silly rules" in the Homebrew section, wth are you doing here defending the game vs. posters who are posting perceived problems in a suggestion thread? eBoarding?
Ah me, yes, I am sorry, I apologize to all. To quote Tanky McTankerson: "Never argue with a troll ...unless you have a flaming sword..."
|
|
Because I bought the game and several hundreds of dollars worth of products. Not all their stuff is garbage (on the creative side), but for the most part their rules are. Not wholly their fault, since they inherited it from 3.5, but some of the changes they made were beyond crappy.I don't know if its too much for me to suggest that pathfinder has some of the better balanced rules that you'll find out in rpg's. Yes there are some dysfunctional rules and some are silly. That's bound to happen with hundreds of rules. Creating an entire world and all of the laws in physics is extremely difficult to balance. As far as a balance stand point goes, pathfinder is one of the better built games out there.
Well I have to respectfully disagree with you here - I think the game is pretty unbalanced - part of it is the 3.5 legacy, but Paizo also has to accept some blame in the design consideration of their version of the game. Namely they went "up power" in all the classes, but didn't address magic. They could have gone back to a more balanced approach of older editions (said more balanced, not perfectly balanced) by magic spell casting risky, instead they just tried to up the ante with all the other classes - and failed. In their defense class based games are much harder to balance than systems that are skill/ability based.
Also they didn't have to "create and entire world and all of the laws in physics"..they just needed to fix them. They had 8 years of play exposure to get a better idea of what was wrong, instead they just went with what fit - as in compatible with existing material.
Anyway, this isn't the thread for this kind of wide "beat down the system" of discussion. I am working on another game right now, and while I run that one I will work on redesigning this game - if I every run a fantasy sword and sorcery game again. I may not since I am pretty burnt out on the d20 mindset.
How using magic feels stale and procedural, not mystic and incomprehensible. It essentially behaves like any other equipment, not something that spawns distrust and creates superstitions.
A lack of ways various staple spells could go wrong, linked to fantasy thematics instead of modern scientific understanding.
Magical traditions (again, based on fantasy philosophy/thematics) that alter the fundamental way your character casts magic. Bloodlines are a flavor to existing magic (though its Arcana is close), traditions such as "card/sutra caster" or "spellsinger" that alter how you use the rules in the Magic chapter, as well as how you interact with rival traditions is what I'm thinking of. Dream mages might alter how mirror magic works, for example- not just "fire hates water," though some of that is acceptable too.
Taboos for spellcasters and superstitions for non-casters to use. Basic charms apprentices might make and sell to pay for their schooling, such as things to keep pests out of the larder, make the laundry dry on a rainy day, hush a room slightly, or make a candle last the better part of a week.
Lists of magic mishaps that aren't entirely comical, so they can be used in a horror, mystery, or high drama game without issue.
Alternative rules/classes/magic and recommendations for games centered around fighting titanic beasts, such as sandworms, sky whales, sea serpents, dire whales, and other genuinely big animals.
(Even if this doesn't have longevity, it bothers me that it's been easier to model this in Old World of Darkness than D20 that I've played)
Fear rules are currently lacking for something so fundamental, and given what Pathfinder is all about, this is squandered potential. Combat, emotion control magics, dungeons, supernatural foes- and yet there are only three stages to fear, and one of them is basically "fight is over." A bit more nuance could lead to great things.
Specific Rules Quibbles:
Ranged spells are aimed with Dexterity, meaning they don't home in. Their trajectory should theoretically decay with range, but they don't use ranged increments like missile weapons- they maintain the same accuracy from point-blank to long range.
SR is painfully inefficient both practically and narratively. Casters can't and don't need to do anything in situ to try harder to overcome SR, all of their leeway in that regard is level-up options and repeating themselves. Most fiction and imagination has spellcasters pushing their limits to break an enemy defense, but there is no basic rule for pushing a spell (sacrificing extra spell slots, losing HP, taking Fatigued or Exhausted condition) to increase the odds of breaking SR. For the SR user, it's a poor tradeoff too; many debilitating spells and magical/supernatural effects ignore SR already, and it doesn't help you against any magical boosts or defenses your opponent might be using. Even most fiction has a magic-resistant attacker capable of breaking through magic-based defense mechanisms a foe is using.
Parka, I really like that post. I've thought about a few of those before as well. In particular, it kind of makes me sad that Colossal creatures are the biggest we have and yet they're kind of ... disappointingly small, at least on a battle grid. When I hear Tarrasque I think Cloverfield Monster, but there's something disappointing in seeing it take up just 5x5 squares. I also remember several iterations of people trying to figure out how to create meaningful Shadow of the Colossus-style rules for such creatures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My corner case annoyance:
The Garrote – so you take a piece of wire and wrap it around someone’s throat, completely cutting off the air supply from their lungs to their brain and possibly attempting to sever their external carotid artery and this falls under the swimming rules for holding your breath… um… yeah…
-TimD
My corner case annoyance:
The Garrote – so you take a piece of wire and wrap it around someone’s throat, completely cutting off the air supply from their lungs to their brain and possibly attempting to sever their external carotid artery and this falls under the swimming rules for holding your breath… um… yeah…-TimD
Agreed entirely with this.
Charging through friendly space vs. through unfriendly space.
Moving Through a Square
You can move through an unoccupied square without difficulty in most circumstances. Difficult terrain and a number of spell effects might hamper your movement through open spaces.
Friend: You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging. When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn't provide you with cover.
*Note bold
Overrun
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square. You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Overrun feat, or a similar ability, initiating an overrun provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent, or the nearest open space in front of the creature if there are other creatures occupying that space.
When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat maneuver check as normal. If your maneuver is successful, you move through the target's space. If your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, you move through the target's space and the target is knocked prone. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has.
So my question is, why not just overrun a friendly and then you can charge through friendly space?
How would you overrun then charge? Overrun was changed to require a Standard Action while Moving. So an Overrun is basically a Full-Round Action.
Passive Perception: 1+(Perception Mod)
Active Perception: d20+(Perception Mod)
Fix the following:
4) Chop a few zeroes from XP values.
5) Get rid of the additional 1.5 damage to power attack with a two-handed weapon.
Altho your first three have some merit, these are neither dysfunctional nor silly. They are design choices.
5) Get rid of the additional 1.5 damage to power attack with a two-handed weapon.
Why would you do that? The damage is the only thing a 2 handed weapon really has going for it (unless you get a reach one).
1 handed allows for shields and higher AC, or a free hand for casting or certain special feats.
Light are best for dual wielding meaning in built static bonuses can be gotten off quickly with a lot of hits.
Taking off extra damage essentially means there's no reason ever to wield a 2 handed weapon.
Right, and historically, Two handers were a reasonable choice, coming after "sword & board" of course. Outside dueling, two weapon style was very rare, and same with just one hand, nothing in the other.
Taking off extra damage essentially means there's no reason ever to wield a 2 handed weapon.
The only thing I can think of besides extra damage is Brace and Reach, and those aren't worth it at all.
... I really wish my players would actually use 2-handed weapons. I don't care if they deal "too much" damage, I've had all of the swashbuckling fops and plucky halflings I can stand.
Additional Quibble:
Throwing daggers like you can in fiction is impossible in typical combat encounter distances unless you allow the player to carry "reskinned" Darts.
"Never argue with a troll ...unless you have a flaming sword..."Or maybe when you have a valid argument, which apparently you do not. Appeal to Roberta Yang and the "devs" doesn't count.
Translation : Anything I don't agree with doesn't count.
Two-Weapon Style was common it was just combined into the Sword & Board Style.
@SunKing: My group has always used that since we started playing 3 Years back. Though that was when we technically were missing PFRPG and 3.5...
|
|
Translation : Anything I don't agree with doesn't count."Never argue with a troll ...unless you have a flaming sword..."Or maybe when you have a valid argument, which apparently you do not. Appeal to Roberta Yang and the "devs" doesn't count.
Let me know when you have reasonable post to disqualify what amounts to someones personal preference in a thread talking about what people dislike in the system.
Translation: Anything I think is crap design still is going to be crap to me..even if snide posters and trolls try to convince me otherwise.
Last I checked this was a discussion about rules we don't like, everyone posting a specific rule over here is being critical of the system. If that's too much for you, you probably shouldn't be posting in this thread.
Translation : Anything I don't agree with doesn't count."Never argue with a troll ...unless you have a flaming sword..."Or maybe when you have a valid argument, which apparently you do not. Appeal to Roberta Yang and the "devs" doesn't count.Let me know when you have reasonable post to disqualify what amounts to someones personal preference in a thread talking about what people dislike in the system.
Translation: Anything I think is crap design still is going to be crap to me..even if snide posters and trolls try to convince me otherwise.
Last I checked this was a discussion about rules we don't like, everyone posting a specific rule over here is being critical of the system. If that's too much for you, you probably shouldn't be posting in this thread.
You made the statement, not me.
How about this, name one thing that you agree with that is a valid argument against you, and I'll drop the translation of your statement. Otherwise, I stand by it.
By all means, slam away all you like, I couldn't care less. I just call BS statements when I see them. And yours was what I translated it as, a statement that basically says 'nothing you can say will change my mind, but I'm going to be snarky about it'. Just come out and say 'Hey, nothing you say is going to change my mind' and be done with it.
|
|
I think when we are talking about preferences/likes/dislikes in the system it is very counter productive to come into a thread telling people that what they dislike is wrong.
You came in and backed that guy.
There wasn't a valid argument against me. I stated that unlimited -0 level spells were moronic (re:bad design, re: subjective, in my opinion). DrDeth then goes on channeling another poster telling me that the devs are not wrong because the have hundreds of years of combined gaming experience to counter my stance that I dislike something.
Pause, breathe and re-read the thread before you knee-jerk dogpile on someone next time.
If you are a paizo eboard defender then I guess the attacks make sense, but again - I thought this was a thread where we discusses silly, dysfunctional and bad rules in the game? Coming in with an argument against something as subjective as like/dislike with the appeal to authority isn't an actual argument.
TL;DR - there isn't a valid argument against me, unless you count "some poster might say this,... or the devs are experienced."
Fix the following:
1) Want a division again between passive perception (spot/notice) and active perception (search). Or a firm delineation as to when non-declared perception checks are allowed.
You enter a room and get a perception check. You see a bed, a desk, a rug, etc. The rug looks like it is covering a secret door (it has an odd wrinkle and bulge in it).
PC says "I search the room." He now gets a perception check to find the secret compartment in the desk.
Now matter how good his initial perception check is, he won't find that secret compartment without searching the room.
Magic items should be priced in platinum, NOT GOLD. They have ridiculously high prices, and so nobody in their right mind would be using gold to buy them.
Stealth rules should be easier for the classes. Armor check penalties are excessive, especially for mail. Note that a group only moves as quietly as the worst roller.
Rogues should be able to coup de grace unaware opponents, if they aren't already.
Get rid of half elves and half orcs as player character core races. They are far too similar to humans. Each race should have a lot of thematic elements to differentiate them from each other.
Weapon weights are wildly inaccurate. Do some research on them.
Overland travel times are inaccurate. 3.4mph is the translation from 30ft per round (6 seconds) yet in 8 hours you travel far less than 3.4mph would suggest.
Core rulebook should have less high end treasure, and more low end treasure, so for additional low price treasure, use UE.
Get rid of the silly broken classes like Alchemist, Summoner. Ninja are just as idiotic, since if you took away the ki rules, the Ninja are basically Rogues.
Combine the APG with the core rulebook, and have done with it. It's basically a tack on for the main book anyway.
Fighters should have more class specific feats. Barbarians should have fewer class skills, since they are supposed to be barbaric and relatively stupid compared to Fighters, yet the game mechanic ends up being the Fighter being the dumb one. Get rid of the warrior class, and just have the Fighter class take over for it. NPC's should use PC classes when possible.
The art is idiotic at best. This cartoon sword, spiky mismatched armor thing is silly. Go realistic instead. Less inanity. Many jokes have been made over Pathfinder art.
If you are going to have certain races be humorous, then don't hold back. The Goblin book missed many opportunities for physical humor. Watch more 3 Stooges if you want to get ideas.
That's all I can think of at short notice.
You can Coup De'Grace any Helpless creature. So maybe give them a Rogue Talent that gives them the abilty to do it. Now if they can take Advance Ninja Tricks then they can just use Assassinate.
Valeros and a few others are fairly realistic. Just need to add on a Backpack.
Overland Travel is not the same as Modern Times. In your average Overland World you would be walking across terrain that is much more difficult to navigate compared to Modern Times. Remember PFRPG travel is more akin to hiking which is around 1.5 MPH. Remember Combat is not walking it is jogging and sprinting.
The Ninja is an Alternate Class to the Rogue. It makes since that it be similar to the Rogue. Do you complain because the Samurai is basically a combo of the Cavalier and Fighter? What about the Anti-Paladin basically being the same as a Paladin?
The Magic Item GP thing I agree with if it wasn't for the fact that it means more Math to determine the base costs of everything.
All Classes can get broken in some way if you try.
Everything is a Tack on for the Main Book? Should we combine then all?
I would say Switch the Fighter and Barbarian Skills and Skill Ranks. But remember these are for a 3PP Fix book not a PFRPG 2.0
PFRPG Weapons are meant to represent multiple weapons which if you go by base steel are heavier than modern Stainless Steel. They also need to represent the vast array of weapons that fit that stat line/description.
How would you overrun then charge? Overrun was changed to require a Standard Action while Moving. So an Overrun is basically a Full-Round Action.
Passive Perception: 1+(Perception Mod)
Active Perception: d20+(Perception Mod)
It states that you can perform an overrun as part of a charge. So you charge an opponent with a friendly in the way who you perform an overrun on, letting them allow you to pass and continue the overrun. This bypasses the first rule of not charging through friendly space.
But IIRC you lose your Charge Attack.
You came in and backed that guy.
Wrong. I pointed out that if you want to debate with people, or want people to debate with you, you have to be in a mental state where you accept the possibility that they are wrong. You are not in such a mental state. You are in a mental state that says 'I am right and you are wrong, nyah!'. That's not a discussion, that's stating a position, not accepting anyone else's viewpoint, and then demanding that anyone else who posts either agree with you, or shut up, since you won't accept any other viewpoint than your own. As we can see below (see the *'s)
There wasn't a valid argument against me.
* Your point of view is nobody else can say you are wrong. That means you have decided you are right and only those who agree with you are supposed to post?
I stated that unlimited -0 level spells were moronic (re:bad design, re: subjective, in my opinion).
I would point out that your statement above actually violates posting rules. it's personally insulting to the developers. Fortuantely for you, they tend to let insults against them slide. You are welcome to your opinion that it's bad. You might want to consider that it makes you look childish and immature to use the term moronic. You come off like a 5yo on a playground.
DrDeth then goes on channeling another poster telling me that the devs are not wrong because the have hundreds of years of combined gaming experience to counter my stance that I dislike something.
You can dislike something. That doesn't make it wrong or moronic. It makes it something you dislike. You can say that without being 'that internet guy'.
Pause, breathe and re-read the thread before you knee-jerk dogpile on someone next time.
Again, I didn't dogpile you. If you look, I commented on your state of mind, not your argument. I even said, you can bash it all you want. But don't lie and say you are willing to listen to reason when you're not, because you've already decided that nobody but you is correct. Again, it makes you look like a 5yo on a playground.
If you are a paizo eboard defender then I guess the attacks make sense, but again - I thought this was a thread where we discusses silly, dysfunctional and bad rules in the game? Coming in with an argument against something as subjective as like/dislike with the appeal to authority isn't an actual argument.
Pause, breath, and re-read the messages I wrote before you knee-jerk fall into a persecution complex.
TL;DR - there isn't a valid argument against me, unless you count "some poster might say this,... or the devs are experienced."
*And again, your stance that anything you don't agree with is not a valid argument, so just say that rather than telling someone you don't agree with to get a valid argument. I understand why you don't want to say it that way, it makes you sound unreasonable... Think about that, and why you don't want to just post that nobody should bother trying to debate it with you... You might come to some enlightenment...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
Ah, so it isn't what I'm saying but in effect how I'm saying it that is offending you?
No counter argument to my post was presented besides an appeal to authority, and even then that wasn't explained.
I can call something moronic, crap, etc - because that is what I think it is ..to me. It's going to take some pretty good convincing to make an argument against someone with that kind view on an subject. In every case/response an argument wasn't presented.
ever.
He could have said - 0 level spells keep low level casters relevant and casting spells instead of having to use their light crossbow. Low level casters should always be able to cast magic, etc, etc - the usual arguments presented to support 0 level unlimited casting.
That wasn't done.
The devs are smarter than you is not an argument, so IT WILL BE DISMISSED FLAT OUT in a thread that is discussing the bad rules those same devs put into the game.
If the fact that I said it was "moronic" vs "I dislike it" offended you, too bad. That's the language I chose to use to reflect how strongly I feel about these BAD changes made to the game.
What I really feel is considerably stronger than these were moronic changes - these were irresponsible, poorly thought out changes with zero thought to internal world consequence.
The term I used summed up my feelings about the change was moronic, but reflecting back substitute moronic with "TERRIBLE, BAD AND IRRESPONSIBLE GAME DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD MAKE ME QUESTION IF THESE DEVELOPERS ARE QUALIFIED TO WRITE GOOD GAMING MATERIAL"
If you feel that the term moronic is insulting to the devs then you are pretty thin skinned, but as a good eboard defender you should just "flag it and move on" instead of troll piling on a subject and argument to which you have contributed nothing to.
Especially if you have nothing (as you have shown) to add to the actual argument. If you feel that being critical of the rules (or the devs for making them) is offensive to your delicate sensibilities than don't post in a thread that is critical of the rules (or the devs for making them). Or at least defend those rules with a valid argument vs. flailing your hands in feigned offense.
So I'm not going to play your game where I a state that "anything you don't agree with me is not a valid argument", you don't get to frame that position for me or set my argument for me.
It isn't a case of me dismissing something outright/don't bother debating me on the subject.
An argument was never presented.
Overland travel times are inaccurate. 3.4mph is the translation from 30ft per round (6 seconds) yet in 8 hours you travel far less than 3.4mph would suggest.
I'm confused about this, since the distance for 1 day of overland travel is 24 miles. Adding in time to take breaks, eat, etc. 24 miles in one day is certainly reasonable, especially if you carrying any amount of gear and not traveling by roads.
That 30 feet per round is the equivalent to a standard military "quick time" march. It's very difficult to maintain on anything other than flat clear terrain.
Overland Travel is not the same as Modern Times. In your average Overland World you would be walking across terrain that is much more difficult to navigate compared to Modern Times. Remember PFRPG travel is more akin to hiking which is around 1.5 MPH. Remember Combat is not walking it is jogging and sprinting.The Magic Item GP thing I agree with if it wasn't for the fact that it means more Math to determine the base costs of everything.
Everything is a Tack on for the Main Book? Should we combine then all?
PFRPG Weapons are meant to represent multiple weapons which if you go by base steel are heavier than modern Stainless Steel. They also need to represent the vast array of weapons that fit that stat line/description.
Those Overland travel times have modifiers based on terrain already. Going at full speed means you are on a road, and almost never on any other terrain.
Nah, less math, and less encumbrance as well. Remember that they use the base 10 system. Magic items are so ludicrously expensive that the only way you'd have the moolah to buy them and NOT be crippled by the weight is through pp.
Nope, the APG (if you look at it) is more of a all around book, meant to add onto the core book. No other book is that general, nor does any other book have as many base classes or alternate base classes. The only other one that comes close is the Ultimate Equipment book.
Those weights I mention are of actual fighting arms from the period, not using modern steel.